Proposed Shared Cataloging and Authorities Task Force

At the April 2012 SUNY Council of Library Directors Spring Meeting the Comprehensive Colleges, Colleges of Technology, and Community Colleges requested that OLIS move forward with the development of a shared catalog database that would contain one record for each bibliographic entity (see addendum for the value of a consolidated bibliographic file). The creation of a taskforce to consider the impact of workflow in a shared cataloging and authorities environment is proposed.

Task Force Name: Shared Cataloging and Authorities Task Force

Sponsor Office of Library and Information Services (OLIS)

Stakeholders SUNY Council of Library Directors (SCLD) SUNY Librarians Association (SUNYLA)

Charge: Work with OLIS to document standards to be followed for workflow within a shared cataloging

and authorities environment based on one record for each bibliographic entity. Decisions need to be scalable and supportable. The goal is to produce a document that outlines practices for addressing the following (see addendum for more detail):

o Merging of bibliographic recordso Authorities – adding and editing –workflow and policieso Cataloging – adding new records – workflow and policies o Cataloging – once records are in the database – workflow and policies o Catalog maintenanceo Batch loading of large bibliographic record setso Services associated with Aleph 01 and 10 librarieso Calming fears and addressing concerns raised by catalogers at the campuses

Task force member participation:This is viewed as a professional obligation. The OLIS will pay for travel costs for any face-to-face meetings. The expectation is that task force members will

Address concepts and activities within a SUNY-wide, rather than campus specific, perspective Actively participate in meetings Complete assignments as agreed upon as a group Request input as necessary from the SUNY library community – such as SUNYLA or SCLD

Co-chairs: Maggie Horn Maureen Zajkowski

Time Frame/Meeting venues: Six months from time of initial meeting

Maureen ZajkowskiSUNY OLISSeptember 12, 2012

o While this may seem like an aggressive schedule, guidelines for cooperative cataloging (PCC) and merging algorithms already exist

Initial face to face meeting if possible (virtual for those who cannot) Subsequent meeting – virtual using Elluminate / phone Possible subgroups to address specific parts of the charge

Recommendations – 6 months from initial meeting: Recommendations to the OLIS for reporting to appropriate stakeholders Anticipated meetings among Task Force members and representatives from stakeholder groups

to provide context for recommendations

Proposed Shared Cataloging and Authorities Task Force Members: NOTE: it is anticipated that not all listed would be interested or able to participate; selections based on their knowledge and work in cataloging/technical services and SUNY sector representation.

Sandy Card, Binghamton Louise Charbonneau, Mohawk Valley April Davies, Cobleskill Anne McFarland, Oneonta Cindy Francis, Genesee Marianne Hebert, Potsdam Amy Hillick, Orange Kevin McCoy, Suffolk Marianne Muha, Buffalo State Nancy Poehlmann, University at Albany Angela Rhodes, Morrisville Amy Rupp, Jamestown Werner Sbaschnik, Old Westbury Jennifer Smathers, Brockport Matthew Smith, Sullivan Kimmy Szeto, Maritime Kenyon Wells, Jefferson Stephen Weiter, Environmental Science and Forestry CUNY representative

AGENDA TOPICS for Initial Meeting: Meet and greet Review expectations Evaluate feasibility of breaking up the charge into subgroups Determine next steps for subsequent meetings

POSSIBLE TIME FRAME for Initial Meeting: September (if possible) Location – Syracuse (would be difficult for Orange, Old Westbury, Maritime, and Suffolk

representatives); the remaining are primarily from western and central New YorkADDENDUM

Maureen ZajkowskiSUNY OLISSeptember 12, 2012

Value of Consolidated Bibliographic File

Locally in SUNY, there have been staffing decreases, most noticeably in Technical Services/Cataloging areas. Further, there has been a significant increase in campus acquisitions of subscription services to digital books. Vendors supply MARC records to enable access through local catalogs, in addition to providing retrieval through the vendor web-sites. The SUNY environment, where each campus has its own unique bibliographic database, results in the loading and maintenance of tens of thousands of duplicate records across multiple catalogs.

The consolidation of bibliographic databases and the introduction of the one bibliographic record per title would streamline maintenance and support of MARC records for these digital items. In addition, this change would make a SUNYConnect-wide discovery system a technically feasible option. And, as Chancellor Zimpher develops the concept of “systemness” to help shift administration cost savings to instruction, a shared catalog would:

a. Create a union view that is accurate – as it represents the actual holdings of the campuses – this has significant implications for resource sharing and collection development across all formats;

b. Would provide a more streamlined environment for shared cataloging operations among campuses;

c. Streamline cataloging workflows – minimize going to a bibliographic utility for acquisition and/or cataloging records for general copy cataloging;

d. Vendor batch loads - MARC records for e-resources subscriptions and Patron Driven Acquisitions (PDA) would be loaded and updated centrally;

e. Possible cost savings by not having to download as many records from source bibliographic utility.

f. Opportunity to investigate cost sharing of access to bibliographic utilities

What Would be Required at the Campus Level for a Shared Catalog?

NOTE: this list is not exhaustive

Merging bibliographic recordso Criteria for selecting the record to be shared by all campuseso Addressing need to maintain local notes and added entries

Authorities o Local additionso Edits and updateso Use of OWN fieldo Who would coordinate ongoing maintenance and upkeepo Who would participate in ongoing maintenance and upkeepo Use of 3rd party service for ongoing updates?

Cataloging – Generalo Use of OWN field

Maureen ZajkowskiSUNY OLISSeptember 12, 2012

Cataloging – adding new records – who arbitrates workflow and policies for o Individual records

Original input Download from WorldCat, other bibliographic utilities, other sources

o Deletions – who can delete and under what circumstances Cataloging – once records are in the database – who arbitrates workflow and policies for

o Itemso Holdingso Local holdings symbol added to WorldCato Editingo Added entrieso Mergeso Overlays

Catalog Maintenanceo Global changeso Deletions of bibliographic records

Vendor batch loadso Configuring batch loads correctlyo Configuring 856 fields, holdings and items correctlyo Vendor records – adding to holdings

856 field for specific campus on correct HOL record Items Holdings Local holdings symbol to WorldCat Merges/overlays

Maureen ZajkowskiSUNY OLISSeptember 12, 2012